House Redistricting Co-op

[ElectionsGuy]

Me and Flo decided to make another redistricting thread with the current districts. I'm going to try and redistrict them in the nicest and fairest way possible. I guess I'll start with Idaho, the smallest state I'm going to do, and will work up to larger population states. Nothing too much to see, its very similar to the current districts.



District 1 (blue) is 60.5% McCain, District 2 (green) is 62.5% McCain. The only county that is split is Ada.



I got most of the city of Boise in the blue districts, with all the suburbs remaining in green.

As default, WY, MT, ND, SD, and AK have republican reps, and VT and DE have democratic reps. Idaho now has 2 Safe R districts, making the total 7 R's to 2 D's.

[muon2]

Help me out here. What do you mean by nice? Can you define it geographically or numerically? If not, why would an independent commission accept your submission?

[ElectionsGuy]

Help me out here. What do you mean by nice? Can you define it geographically or numerically? If not, why would an independent commission accept your submission?

By nice I mean mostly whole counties, not reaching into areas that are far away, and keeping a community that relates to each other (ID-1 could be Mormons, for example). Numerically I don't know how I would explain it. I suppose an example of something being not nice would look like this:

[muon2]

Help me out here. What do you mean by nice? Can you define it geographically or numerically? If not, why would an independent commission accept your submission?

By nice I mean mostly whole counties, not reaching into areas that are far away, and keeping a community that relates to each other (ID-1 could be Mormons, for example). Numerically I don't know how I would explain it. I suppose an example of something being not nice would look like this:

I ask since you split Boise from Nampa, but not on the county line. I stickied the UCC definitions so mappers could see which counties were metro areas that one should preserve. By the way would this count as "nice"? There are no split counties, Boise and Nampa are kept together, and the deviation is only 146 from the quota.

[ElectionsGuy]

Help me out here. What do you mean by nice? Can you define it geographically or numerically? If not, why would an independent commission accept your submission?

By nice I mean mostly whole counties, not reaching into areas that are far away, and keeping a community that relates to each other (ID-1 could be Mormons, for example). Numerically I don't know how I would explain it. I suppose an example of something being not nice would look like this:

I ask since you split Boise from Nampa, but not on the county line. I stickied the UCC definitions so mappers could see which counties were metro areas that one should preserve. By the way would this count as "nice"? There are no split counties, Boise and Nampa are kept together, and the deviation is only 146 from the quota.

Certainly, should an Idaho map that contains both Canyon and Ada counties in one district be used for the thread? My only concern is having North Idaho and SE Idaho in one district.

[muon2]

Certainly, should an Idaho map that contains both Canyon and Ada counties in one district be used for the thread? My only concern is having North Idaho and SE Idaho in one district.

That gets back to definitions. Is it better to split the Boise metro, or to put the opposite parts of the state together? The tougher question is why shouldn't the opposite parts of the state be together? Can it be quantified or clearly described?

Fair mapping is tough to defend without principles. States that have fair mapping have language defining how to draw the map. Some states are much better than others at stating what fair means. That gives us the ability to say what we mean, and how it might be better than what states currently use.

[jimrtex]

Certainly, should an Idaho map that contains both Canyon and Ada counties in one district be used for the thread? My only concern is having North Idaho and SE Idaho in one district.

That gets back to definitions. Is it better to split the Boise metro, or to put the opposite parts of the state together? The tougher question is why shouldn't the opposite parts of the state be together? Can it be quantified or clearly described?

Fair mapping is tough to defend without principles. States that have fair mapping have language defining how to draw the map. Some states are much better than others at stating what fair means. That gives us the ability to say what we mean, and how it might be better than what states currently use.

What about swapping Payette, Gem, and Boise for Minidoka, Lincoln, and Jerome, making a more Boise-centric district (plus Twin Falls).

Northern Idaho is isolated from all of southern Idaho.  Driving from Pocatello to Couer d'Alene is about the same as Boise to Couer d'Alene, and the best routes may be through the Tri Cities in Washington, or Butte and Missoula in Montana.

At the time of Wesberry v Sanders, Idaho was very malapportioned 409K vs 257K.  The northern district included Canyon (Nampa) while the southern included Ada (Boise).  That is, they were trying to include everything feasible in a Northern Idaho district and were still coming up short.

The minimum change option was to split Boise.  With the growth of Boise, it may be feasible now to have a deformed quarter-doughnut.

[muon2]

Certainly, should an Idaho map that contains both Canyon and Ada counties in one district be used for the thread? My only concern is having North Idaho and SE Idaho in one district.

That gets back to definitions. Is it better to split the Boise metro, or to put the opposite parts of the state together? The tougher question is why shouldn't the opposite parts of the state be together? Can it be quantified or clearly described?

Fair mapping is tough to defend without principles. States that have fair mapping have language defining how to draw the map. Some states are much better than others at stating what fair means. That gives us the ability to say what we mean, and how it might be better than what states currently use.

What about swapping Payette, Gem, and Boise for Minidoka, Lincoln, and Jerome, making a more Boise-centric district (plus Twin Falls).

Northern Idaho is isolated from all of southern Idaho.  Driving from Pocatello to Couer d'Alene is about the same as Boise to Couer d'Alene, and the best routes may be through the Tri Cities in Washington, or Butte and Missoula in Montana.

At the time of Wesberry v Sanders, Idaho was very malapportioned 409K vs 257K.  The northern district included Canyon (Nampa) while the southern included Ada (Boise).  That is, they were trying to include everything feasible in a Northern Idaho district and were still coming up short.

The minimum change option was to split Boise.  With the growth of Boise, it may be feasible now to have a deformed quarter-doughnut.

A swap of Gem and Washington for Camas, Lincoln, and Minidoka creates districts that are only 669 from the quota. It also maintains the I-84 corridor from Boise to Twin Falls in one district, and keeps Boise county with the only good road connection across the mountains from N to SE in the other district.

[ElectionsGuy]

Nebraska:





NE-1: 50.4% O, 48.3% M. 55.1/44.9 R/D. Lean R
NE-2: 52.8% M, 45.6% O. 59.3/40.7 R/D. Likely R
NE-3: 69.1% M, 29.2% O. 67.9/32.1 R/D. Safe R

[ElectionsGuy]

New Mexico:





NM-1: 53.0% M, 45.6% O. 55.9/44.1 R/D. Likely R
NM-2: 60.0% O, 38.7% M. 54.2/45.8 D/R. Safe D
NM-3: 63.3% O, 35.5% M. 59.2/40.8 D/R. Safe D

[ElectionsGuy]

Nevada:





NV-1: 49.4% O, 48.2% M. 54.8/45.2 R/D. Lean R
NV-2: 69.0% O, 28.9% M. 68.6/31.4 D/R. Safe D
NV-3: 60.4% O, 37.5% M. 57.7/42.3 D/R. Safe D
NV-4: 49.4% M, 48.4% O. 53.8/46.2 R/D. Lean R

Is this one drawn a bit in favor of republicans? I kind of feel like it is.

[muon2]

Nevada:





NV-1: 49.4% O, 48.2% M. 54.8/45.2 R/D. Lean R
NV-2: 69.0% O, 28.9% M. 68.6/31.4 D/R. Safe D
NV-3: 60.4% O, 37.5% M. 57.7/42.3 D/R. Safe D
NV-4: 49.4% M, 48.4% O. 53.8/46.2 R/D. Lean R

Is this one drawn a bit in favor of republicans? I kind of feel like it is.

Not very much. When I drew a plan that split no counties except Clark and no cities within Clark I had the following Obama 08 numbers: 65.9, 50.0, 50.6, 57.6. It seems like the Reno CD and the Henderson/non-Clark CD will tend to be even to lean R districts.

[ElectionsGuy]

Utah:





UT-1: 55.3% O, 41.8% M. Toss-Up
UT-2: 68.9% M, 28.1% O. Safe R
UT-3: 68.4% M, 28.6% O. Safe R
UT-4: 71.6% M, 25.1% O. Safe R

Under this scenario, Utah has a competitive district. It might actually Lean D, perfect for a Matheson candidate. Of course this comes at the expense of the other districts being beyond safe for any republican.

Not very much. When I drew a plan that split no counties except Clark and no cities within Clark I had the following Obama 08 numbers: 65.9, 50.0, 50.6, 57.6. It seems like the Reno CD and the Henderson/non-Clark CD will tend to be even to lean R districts.

Alright, that's good. I notice that no matter how you draw Nevada, there's going to be at least two semi-competitive districts.

[ElectionsGuy]

Kansas:



KS-1: 49.8% M, 48.9% O. Lean R
KS-2: 57.5% M, 40.6% O. Safe R
KS-3: 52.3% M, 45.7% O. Likely R
KS-4: 68.7% M, 29.5% O. Safe R

If anybody wants this zoomed up in a particular place, I can do that.

[muon2]

Utah:





UT-1: 55.3% O, 41.8% M. Toss-Up
UT-2: 68.9% M, 28.1% O. Safe R
UT-3: 68.4% M, 28.6% O. Safe R
UT-4: 71.6% M, 25.1% O. Safe R

Under this scenario, Utah has a competitive district. It might actually Lean D, perfect for a Matheson candidate. Of course this comes at the expense of the other districts being beyond safe for any republican.

I'm not wild about the northern part of your CD-4. There's no way to get to the Rich and Cache parts from the rest of the CD without taking dirt trails or by driving through WY. Contiguous but disconnected districts (like what I described) are a hallmark of gerrymanders.

For example, consider this plan. It splits no counties except Salt Lake and it splits no municipalities in Salt Lake. The maximum population deviation is less than 500. Other than the fact that the string of contiguous but disconnected counties along the west and south borders is longer than yours the idea is the same. Obama's best district here is only 46.2%.

[Sol]

Utah:





UT-1: 55.3% O, 41.8% M. Toss-Up
UT-2: 68.9% M, 28.1% O. Safe R
UT-3: 68.4% M, 28.6% O. Safe R
UT-4: 71.6% M, 25.1% O. Safe R

Under this scenario, Utah has a competitive district. It might actually Lean D, perfect for a Matheson candidate. Of course this comes at the expense of the other districts being beyond safe for any republican.

I'm not wild about the northern part of your CD-4. There's no way to get to the Rich and Cache parts from the rest of the CD without taking dirt trails or by driving through WY. Contiguous but disconnected districts (like what I described) are a hallmark of gerrymanders.

For example, consider this plan. It splits no counties except Salt Lake and it splits no municipalities in Salt Lake. The maximum population deviation is less than 500. Other than the fact that the string of contiguous but disconnected counties along the west and south borders is longer than yours the idea is the same. Obama's best district here is only 46.2%.

That UT-01 is problematic; there are basically no road connections (that don't go through Nevada) and the Bonneville Salt Flats are in the way. Let me see if I can do something...

[muon2]

Utah:





UT-1: 55.3% O, 41.8% M. Toss-Up
UT-2: 68.9% M, 28.1% O. Safe R
UT-3: 68.4% M, 28.6% O. Safe R
UT-4: 71.6% M, 25.1% O. Safe R

Under this scenario, Utah has a competitive district. It might actually Lean D, perfect for a Matheson candidate. Of course this comes at the expense of the other districts being beyond safe for any republican.

I'm not wild about the northern part of your CD-4. There's no way to get to the Rich and Cache parts from the rest of the CD without taking dirt trails or by driving through WY. Contiguous but disconnected districts (like what I described) are a hallmark of gerrymanders.

For example, consider this plan. It splits no counties except Salt Lake and it splits no municipalities in Salt Lake. The maximum population deviation is less than 500. Other than the fact that the string of contiguous but disconnected counties along the west and south borders is longer than yours the idea is the same. Obama's best district here is only 46.2%.

That UT-01 is problematic; there are basically no road connections (that don't go through Nevada) and the Bonneville Salt Flats are in the way. Let me see if I can do something...

That's my point to ElectionsGuy. If you allow contiguity without connections as he did in the NE corner, then nothing stops a grander sweep like the map I posted. I drew it a couple of years ago to see what the minimum inequality plan was with whole counties and contiguity only.

[Sol]

Utah:





UT-1: 55.3% O, 41.8% M. Toss-Up
UT-2: 68.9% M, 28.1% O. Safe R
UT-3: 68.4% M, 28.6% O. Safe R
UT-4: 71.6% M, 25.1% O. Safe R

Under this scenario, Utah has a competitive district. It might actually Lean D, perfect for a Matheson candidate. Of course this comes at the expense of the other districts being beyond safe for any republican.

I'm not wild about the northern part of your CD-4. There's no way to get to the Rich and Cache parts from the rest of the CD without taking dirt trails or by driving through WY. Contiguous but disconnected districts (like what I described) are a hallmark of gerrymanders.

For example, consider this plan. It splits no counties except Salt Lake and it splits no municipalities in Salt Lake. The maximum population deviation is less than 500. Other than the fact that the string of contiguous but disconnected counties along the west and south borders is longer than yours the idea is the same. Obama's best district here is only 46.2%.

That UT-01 is problematic; there are basically no road connections (that don't go through Nevada) and the Bonneville Salt Flats are in the way. Let me see if I can do something...

That's my point to ElectionsGuy. If you allow contiguity without connections as he did in the NE corner, then nothing stops a grander sweep like the map I posted. I drew it a couple of years ago to see what the minimum inequality plan was with whole counties and contiguity only.

Oh, ok. I'm relentlessly dumb.

Anyway, it seems like the best option for the Northern district is to take the SLC district into southern Davis County.

[muon2]

Here's what I come up with for a neutral UT map. The Ogden UCC includes Weber, Davis and Box Elder and connectivity forces Cache and Rich to be grouped with them in one region. This region is about 12K above the quota for a CD. If Morgan is added then North Salt Lake and a microchop of Bountiful can be shifted south keeping the size of the Davis chop under 5%.

The population of Utah county is sufficiently large that the minimal set of counties linking it to Washington down I 15 is 39K over quota, and along US 89 is 26K over quota. The conclusion is that to avoid a chop to Utah or another southern county, part of Salt Lake county must link up to Washington.

Utah also creates some challenges to strict rules for county connections. I generally require that a connection requires one to drive between county seats on maintained, all-season numbered state or federal highways without crossing into a third county. By that rule Grand and San Juan are disconnected from the rest of the state so the rule is loosened to allow cuts across a third county through unpopulated area or by means of an improved local road that connects two state highways. Not only does this resolve the disconnection in the SE, but also allows Toole to connect to Juab. That in turn provides for a connection all the way from SLC along the NV boundary to Washington.





CD 1: +367; O'08 28.1%
CD 2: +1017; O'08 49.5% (remains competitive as in EG's map)
CD 3: -2097; O'08 23.0%
CD 4: +711; O'08 34.1%